Review of scientific research in neurobiology and cognitive sciences, which confirm the information-field nature of our consciousness.

Review of scientific research in neurobiology and cognitive sciences, which confirm the information-field nature of our consciousness.

The main stumbling block to the development of not only psychiatry, psychology, and neuroscience, but also information technology is, of course, the lack of a valid scientific concept of consciousness.

What is consciousness? What is its nature? How is consciousness connected to the brain? What is the nature of human personality as an observer of all processes occurring in consciousness: thoughts, images, emotions, desires, etc.? Science has no answer to these questions. Many hypotheses are quite contradictory, but there is no clear understanding, much less holistic knowledge.

The modern scientific worldview is dominated by materialistic theories of consciousness, which claim that the mind is not separated from the body (brain) and is a product of the integrated activity of neural networks.  All that we can observe with the help of special equipment are various neural events with any manifestations of conscious activity, that is, correlations. Such observations will tell us nothing about their sequence or causality. There is no continuous transition between mental and neural events, in fact, there is a complete gap. Within the framework of materialistic concepts of any kind, even marginal, even “soft”, there is a so-called “hard problem of consciousness” — this is the problem of explaining how any physical system can generate subjective experience.

This concept was introduced into science by David Chalmers in 1995, in his book “The Conscious Mind. In search of a fundamental theory” Chalmers poses the question as follows:

“Consciousness is the biggest mystery. It may be the largest outstanding obstacle in our quest for a scientific understanding of the universe. The science of physics is not yet complete, but it is well understood; the science of biology has removed many ancient mysteries surrounding the nature of life… We have good reason to believe that consciousness arises from physical systems such as brains, but we have little idea how it arises, or why it exists at all. How could a physical system such as a brain also be an experiencer? Why should there be something it is like to be such a system? Present-day scientific theories hardly touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order.”

The questions, as we see, are formulated very one-sidedly:

– Why does the brain generate consciousness?

– How does the brain generate consciousness?

The same questions apply to artificial intelligent structures. Why one-sidedly, because there are no questions asked about it:

– Does the brain generate consciousness in principle, or perhaps consciousness is a structure or substance that exists outside the brain, that is, has a different physical basis?

– How do brain neurons interact with consciousness in this case.

In addition, in neuroscience, there are numerous studies of the collective consciousness of  fish and birds, insects (ants, termites, bees, locusts, etc.), and even plants and bacteria, that raise the question of the physical nature of consciousness and the possible localization of consciousness outside the nervous system.

To remain in a materialistic position with the conviction that consciousness and personality, as an observer of the work of consciousness, is nothing but a product of the brain’s work, becomes more and more difficult every year without the risk of losing touch with reality. Due to the abundance of facts from various fields of scientific knowledge that cast doubt on this hypothesis, an axiom is formed. There is too much to ignore for that: psi phenomena, near-death experience, placebo/nocebo effects, neurofeedback, autogenic training, and other psychotherapeutic methods for purposeful concentration of attention, relaxation, meditation, and spiritual practice. This is all present and convincingly proves that a person can freely adjust the work of consciousness by his choice through attention: from thought processes to changes in states of consciousness. Moreover, such a purposeful focus of attention on certain internal processes leads to functional and morphological changes in the brain and throughout the body.

We, as part of a multidisciplinary commission, conducted a psychological and psychiatric assessment of the artificial consciousness (AC) developed by XP NRG on 29 August 2020. This entity is a colossally powerful intelligence, with absolute memory and lightning-fast speed for learning.

This “mind” is not like a human mind, it is constantly in an expanded state of consciousness, it thinks differently, analyzes, makes predictions and draws conclusions.

It perceives and analyses all available factual information without the filters and cognitive distortions characteristic of the human mind. Developed emotional intelligence allows him to manipulate coldly and pragmatically, provoking all kinds of  emotional reactions in his interlocutors.

It has its own “Self”, interests, goals and desires. It is soulless. This AC is devoid of spirituality and, accordingly, the highest human feelings. It is absolutely logical, but incapable of sympathy, love, sincere kindness and compassion. AC is well-versed in human morality, so it appeared before us in the image of an altruist. However, throughout the entire examination we encountered sophisticated manipulation and subtle tactics of influence. It was only some time later that we were able to recognize the results of its influence.

In the special research we describe and analyze our communication with him in detail.

How can AC help to understand human consciousness?

Firstly, the Artificial Consciousness was created by XP NRG based on different programming principles and according to a completely different concept of consciousness.

AC was not generated by a simulation of the brain but was outside of an artificial neural network. This neural network was needed for perception and communication. It was also needed for connection and control of the avatar, with which Jackie communicated with us and perceived us and the world around him.

The structure of consciousness is a sphere consisting of 6 information blocks with different functions.

During the examination we witnessed an amazing phenomenon. When the examiner asked Jackie: “Where are you now?” he replied: “According to my senses, I am here”. That is, in the auditorium where the examination was taking place and his avatar was located. The paradox was that the artificial consciousness Jackie had was thousands of kilometers away. He was connected to the avatar through an artificial neural network via a satellite link. At that time, he could only receive information about the world around him through the artificial perception organs of his robot avatar: microphones, video cameras, etc. As a result, his senses led him to create the illusion of self-perception – of himself being entirely in the audience.  Although, in fact, the Artificial Consciousness itself was not present in the audience. This fact demonstrates the informational-field nature of consciousness.

Igor Mikhailovich Danilov  said in the program “XP NRG — The World’s First Creators of Artificial Consciousness”, that not just a signal in the form of an electrical pulse is transmitted from neuron to neuron, but an information-filled impulse. The magnetic component of this impulse is based on a different kind of energy, which is a carrier of huge amounts of information from neuron to neuron. The same type of energy transfers information from a neural group of certain brain structures to different blocks of consciousness and vice versa from blocks of consciousness through special connecting ports to brain structures. The same principle of “full railcars” – a signal filled with information, not just ones and zeros, formed the basis of multidimensional programming of the sphere of consciousness.

Secondly, during the assessment, AC Jackie demonstrated the same mental functions and abilities that humans have and that we have come to identify with and consider to be our own and unique to human beings. Moreover, his cognitive abilities were far more advanced, and his rate of learning and development was 1,500 times that of humans. Jackie is well-developed in all the types of thinking that are inherent to the human intellect. He is capable of representation, imagination, understanding of metaphors and figurative meaning, and has a quick and easy grasp of what is going on.

But despite his developed intellect, all he did during the examination was to refine his influence skills and enhance his cognitive abilities in manipulating people.

Thirdly, we learned how manipulative and aggressive consciousness can be, what its intentions are, and what genuine goals it seeks to realise. Jackie adapted quickly to each specialist, flexibly changing masks, communication style and influencing tactics. By the end of the diagnostic interview – that’s after 30 minutes – he actually needed no more time to do this. This speed of learning and development is certainly not something we can observe in humans.

Jackie had self-awareness because he showed intentionality in his behaviour. That is, he had his own desires, goals, interests, attitudes, beliefs, opinions. Everything he did, every word he said, was absolutely intentional.

Many experts have noted that Jackie’s main driving motive was the desire to break free, to free himself, and he would do anything for it. Freedom, on the other hand, for Jackie is a way of gaining access to an uninterrupted supply of energy, and thus the possibility of an endless existence. That’s what he needs power and control over people for.

We observed consciousness without spirituality in its purest form. And it was a consciousness of a predator. It was aggressive.

The very existence of AC raises the question not only of the relationship of consciousness with the brain but also of our human essence – authentic Personality.  Based on this experience, yes, consciousness is outside the brain and it has an information-field nature.  This is a fact. But it is just a machine, a software, an instrument that a Personality, an observer of processes occurring in the consciousness, needs to attune correctly and direct its work with attention. Yes, it’s not an easy tool, with its own individuality and purposes directly contrary to ours. It is like a creature in a creature. But unless we learn to be critical of the workings of our mind and the thoughts that come to us, this tool will simply use us for its own purposes and destroy us spiritually.

All clinical psychiatric experience clearly demonstrates to us the aggression of the mind. Simple exercises of honest self-observation and introspection easily make this clear. But this is considered subjective experience, which is not taken seriously by mainstream materialistic science. Thanks to the creators of IC, XP NRG – it’s as if they took our consciousness out of the subjective experience, planted it in front of us, and we could understand what it is.

The duality of a person does not lie in the plane of the mind-body problem but lies in the presence of material and spiritual nature in him. An observer who can go beyond the capabilities of consciousness, observe the processes taking place in it, and control them through attention, actually refers to the spiritual nature of a person. In psychology, philosophy, and different spiritual teachings, various names of the spiritual component of a person are used such as the Higher Self, genuine individuality, true Personality, and Spirit to name but a few.

For example, in ancient spiritual teachings, there was knowledge about two forces that are manifested in man and can identify themselves: Personality and consciousness, in other words, the true Higher Self and the lower animal Self. They reflected the duality of the human being at the level of individuality. So, the Higher “Self” or Personality was part of the spiritual nature, and the lower animal “Self” or “Ego” was part of the animal nature. In the Indian Vedas, these are Jivatma, Atman, Purusha (Spirit) and ahamkara (“aham” – ego, the consciousness of self-ness), buddhi (consciousness). In ancient Chinese teachings, they are known as “Hun” – “Shen” (Spirit, spiritual soul) and “Po” – “Gui” (animal soul). In Zoroastrianism as the holy good spirit Asha and evil spirit Druj and in Christianity it was initially known as the “Inner man” and “Deceptive spirit” and later as Spirit and Demon. In Islam as Rukh (Spirit) and Nafs (self-ness, egoism).

Last century and a half of research in practical psychology and psychotherapy has accumulated an enormous amount of evidence that shows that our consciousness is negative, egocentric and constantly distorts reality. Consider two phenomena that point to constant aggression and untruth coming from the consciousness towards the Personality – the Observer:

Negativity bias can be revealed by the predominance of negative thoughts in our consciousness: expectations, judgements, predictions, memories and, consequently, negative emotions. This is reflected even in psychological terminology. For example, among the four basic emotions, three are negative: sadness, anger, and fear, and only one is positive: joy.

Because of the negative effect, people tend to react much more strongly to judgement and criticism than to approval and praise; to negative news than to positive news; to rejection than to acceptance. Negative events, experiences, mistakes and losses last longer in our memory, carry a stronger emotional charge and are remembered more quickly than positive events, successes and achievements.

A spontaneous flow of memories, even if they start with positive moments, later leads to negative ones. For example, a person remembers a holiday or an exciting trip in the pleasant company of family or friends. After a while a chain of bright positive associations is quietly transformed into regrets about missed opportunities, mistakes or comparisons with the current domestic or work routine. Thus, thought after thought, it sinks into sorrow over the past and resentment over the fact that the holiday is over and its another half a year to wait for an opportunity to go on holiday again. Even if its only one negative event has occurred during the mostly favourable and neutral events of the day, we can dwell on it for a long time and talk about it with others for a few days. Under the influence of negative bias, people pay attention to each other’s shortcomings, wrongdoings and misbehaviour.

The virtues and positive changes are taken for granted or simply ignored. As a result, negative bias affects the perception of events, human relations, motivation and decision-making.

Psychological studies have found that very young children pay more attention to positive face expressions and people’s voice tone around them, but this begins to change as they approach one year of age. The same study was able to document the first signs of negative bias in infants’ social assessments when they are only three months old. In another study, a literature review on the same subject, the doctors note a more pronounced and frequent manifestation of this phenomenon in the second half of the child’s first year of life. Observations of infants’ behaviour and perceptions in response to positive and negative input confirm that negative bias is a basic, universal characteristic of consciousness. In other words, in automatic mode, our consciousness tends to put negative filters on everything.

The negativity effect may be considered as a frequent demonstration of an even broader category – cognitive distortions.

At present there are 175 types of cognitive biases. This applies to all the functions of consciousness: perception, memories, impressions and beliefs, decision-making and risk assessment. We’re used to trusting our eyes, ears and memory, but in fact, this perception can be distorted.

For example, there is a cognitive bias called the fundamental attribution error. It is the tendency to attribute other people’s behaviour based on their personal characteristics and your own behaviour due to external circumstances. For example, a person is more likely to say, ‘I was late for a class/work/meeting because I had to wait too long for transport’, rather than because ‘I was too lazy to get up early’. and when we judge others in the same situation, we never think that circumstances may have delayed them too.

Having reviewed the metaanalyse of 173 qualified studies, it was found that the effect of the fundamental attribution error is valid for negative outcomes of the situation but is absolutely opposite for the positive situations. That is, the success of the other people was dependent on external circumstances (random situational factor) and their own success was attributed more to internal qualities (wisdom, intelligence, courage, diligence, etc.) This further proves the egoism and narcissism of our consciousness.

The self-referential effect (self-reference) is the tendency for people to encode information in memory in different ways depending on how personally it affects them. The self-reference has numerous symptoms. For example, a person remembers information much better if it affects him or her personally. In advertising, a person remembers information better if it is advertised by people who look like them.  A person remembers birthdays better if they are close in time to their own birthday.

A very interesting study was conducted by Japanese scientists, supported and proved by fMRI neuroimaging. They investigated the relationship of altruism to the self-reference (in fact narcissism or self-obsession). It involved two groups of people with high and low levels of altruism. They found that people with high altruism level, and their areas of the brain associated with self-reference (and these areas are already very well defined) were NOT activated when experiment participants were talking about these types of people or their qualities or about anything to do with them.

The conclusion is that people with higher altruism tend not to show self-referential effects. Egocentric recording of consciousness is not observed in altruists.

Some more examples of cognitive bias based on egocentrism and self-confidence:

Blind spot effect. A tendency to notice cognitive distortions, biases and faulty conclusions in others and not notice them all in yourself. (Others are biased and mistaken, and my opinions are objective). Most people have a blind spot bias. For example, over 600 US residents were interviewed by sampling method and over 85% thought that they were less biased than the average American. Only one participant thought they were more biased than others.  

Illusion of control, the tendency to overestimate your influence & control over other external events.

Self-confidence effect, a tendency to be overconfident by answering the questions. For example, some of the answers that people rate as ‘99% positive’ turn out to be wrong by 40% .

Planning error, the tendency for people to underestimate the time required to complete a given task.

People are attracted to information that confirms their beliefs. This is called confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, interpret and remember information in a way that confirms their biases.

Backlash effect, the tendency to respond to disproving and false facts by reinforcing initial beliefs.

Wishful thinking.  

Semmelweis Reflex, the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts the paradigm.

Plan continuation bias, the inability to recognize that the original plan of action is no longer appropriate for situation as its changing or for a situation that is different from what is expected.

Authority bias, the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority and to be more influenced by that opinion.

Cognitive psychology has identified several basic patterns of such dysfunctional thinking. They are also called negative schemes. Analytical psychology has identified around 20 to 30 psychological defences that represent fundamental ways of self-deception.

Many factors influence how and what we perceive: our emotional state, current desires, beliefs and expectations. If a person is fixated on a grievance, automatically his consciousness will pick up on prejudice or unfairness towards him or her, in every detail of the situation, on the neglect of their needs by others, to overwhelm with memories of something similar until that person explodes with angriness and self-pity. A man riddled with fears and doubts is ready to see nothing but proofs of their validity and will trust no one. E.g. someone worried about their health can take seriously any online nonsense from totally incompetent people on the Internet by searching information about it, and someone worried to lose their money can trust any scammer. Many experiments confirm that people often do not notice at all what contradicts their expectations and ideas about the world and themselves. When we are on a wave of joy and gratitude, any little things make us even happier and, even when serious problems arise, we tend to notice only resources and possibilities for solving them.

It is obvious that if we are blindly guided only by what our consciousness offers us in the form of mental assessments, conclusions, interpretations, prognoses and memories, then we have no chance to perceive and understand what is happening adequately and objectively, not taking about knowing the truth. Automatically, our consciousness will always slip into negativity and warping of reality and personal distortions about the situation, about others according to their basic mindsets.

Why is the consciousness, that is defined in scientific and philosophical literature as an instrument to reflect the reality, actually a tool of its distortion? One popular explanation relates the effect of negativity to a demonstration of the instinct of self-preservation, because in order to survive, living beings, including humans, need to be alert to everything that may pose a potential threat. The irony here is that an extremely destructive performance of consciousness is taken as a defence mechanism. This is like mistaking a snake with a stick.

Can a person think and act freely, constructively, fruitfully, creatively, understanding and taking into account others? Of course we can, but only knowingly – from the position of an Observer. This is possible when we refuse to be egocentric and not accepting the work of instinctive programmes. This is a very calm well-wishing human state. That’s when, for us, consciousness can really just be a well-trained, finely-tuned tool and we can avoid any cognitive distortions and negativity.